Very Upsetting
#11
09-06-2009, 01:32 AM
File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. These are figures on how many people died in the US in 2004(latest) by a weapon, around 8000 or so.... As long as we are below that figure than its fine i guess. We still have a ways to... Great then, over 34000 people died last year in automobile accidents. Man we have a ways to go there as well. Great analogy !!! Maybe if the government started attacking people here as well, we should support them anyways? You either support our troops or the enemy. I choose to support our troops. There are some things worth fighting for. I have no doubt had we not taken the war to them that there would be fighting on our streets and car bombs exploding throughout our country. War is a dirty business. Most of us understand the demands and sacrifices made during a war. We don't need to see dead bodies on the cover of our newspapers or TV's. It only serves the opposition's agenda and is disrespectful of the soldier and their family.
Last edited by Dejanh; 09-06-2009 at 01:34 AM.
#12
09-06-2009, 01:40 AM
Immediately following 9/11, and I'm talking within DAYS, enlistment was up all over the country after we watched 3000 people die. If anything, it has the opposite effect because it angers people.
#13
09-06-2009, 02:07 AM
Board Regular
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the back of your mind
Posts: 421
So then it's a good thing.
__________________
The Big Engines In the Night- The Diesel on the Pass -Jack Kerouac, "Mexico City Blues"
#14
09-06-2009, 02:19 AM
Board Regular
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In the back of your mind
Posts: 421
Lights, show me where it's your "right" to see a dead soldier's body like what the AP ran. Guarantee you will never find that "right" which you speak of because it does not exist. Just because these pics have been shown since the Civil War doesn't make it right morally or your "right" to see them. Your argument that viewing these gruesome pics would cause fewer enlistment's is way wrong. There are plenty of young men and women who will still sign up. The family asked that the photo not be made public and the AP ran it anyway. The family does have a right to privacy and the AP ignored it, that is a right that does exist.
The press doesn't merely have the right to publish this information, in a truly free and just society it has an obligation to do so. If it's true it should get published. Lots of people don't want lots of things published every day. The right and necessity of the public to have access to such information outweighs those wishes.
__________________
The Big Engines In the Night- The Diesel on the Pass -Jack Kerouac, "Mexico City Blues"
#15
09-06-2009, 02:33 AM
No.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance"
The press doesn't merely have the right to publish this information, in a truly free and just society it has an obligation to do so. If it's true it should get published.
Lots of people don't want lots of things published every day. The right and necessity of the public to have access to such information outweighs those wishes.
#16
09-06-2009, 02:40 AM
The public has no right to see the dead body of a private citizen, nor does it have a necessity to see the dead body of a private citizen. If these were government photos, you would have a basis for this argument. But they aren't.
__________________
#17
09-06-2009, 02:54 AM
Unless they were taken by the government, we have no right to see them. The AP had a right to publish the photo - that isn't the point. The point is that they ignored the wishes of the family for no good reason.
#18
09-06-2009, 03:02 AM
I understand what you are saying, that the AP went against the wishes of the family and it was very disrespectful. But when you start saying "rights" it takes away from the point above. We have the right to free speech , which is protected by the highest from of Law to this country, the United States Constitution. We have a right to see things from the government through the Freedom of Information Act. The AP had the right to publish the pictures protected by the US Constitution in the fact that it is free from censorship or limitations. The AP published the picture within that "right". The point of the OP, and over all debate was, I believe the fact the family asked them not to be published. Perhaps the AP is in error with the moral obligation bestowed upon them by the soldiers family. But the AP was within the rights of freedom of speech. We have the right to read/see what we wish, if it is published under the Freedom of Speech.
__________________
Last edited by dobry4u; 09-06-2009 at 03:04 AM.
#20
09-06-2009, 03:21 AM
I understand what you are saying, that the AP went against the wishes of the family and it was very disrespectful.
But when you start saying "rights" it takes away from the point above. We have the right to free speech , which is protected by the highest from of Law to this country, the United States Constitution. We have a right to see things from the government through the Freedom of Information Act. The AP had the right to publish the pictures protected by the US Constitution in the fact that it is free from censorship or limitations. The AP published the picture within that "right". The point of the OP, and over all debate was, I believe the fact the family asked them not to be published. Perhaps the AP is in error with the moral obligation bestowed upon them by the soldiers family. But the AP was within the rights of freedom of speech. We have the right to read/see what we wish, if it is published under the Freedom of Speech. They should have respected the family and self-censored. |
